avalos raised. i know was some point, it was mentioned we can go to the website, and i do want to look at district five, because whether it is a community meeting or meeting in office, most of the constituents's concerns directly relate to traffic calming, i think. not the majority, but a big percentage. i would like to see what is in the pipeline for district five. most of it is constituent- driven, but concerns keep on coming up, the same ones come up there might be times when i might want to request something or engage in some dialogue with you all based on what i am

hearing from constituents. where do i get a list? do i meet with you? do i go on liline? >> as part of our application we did put together a list district by district of all the different applications we have it. there are ripped out five different places they could be, and we can provide that to you. we have one for each district. just a little over a month we received $2 million to move forward with implementation, so implementation will not stop. that will be continuing. we're planning to make good on promises we are ready made and move forward with community process and implementation of speed bumps and other things of that nature. implementation will be continuing. we will figure out how we could traffic calming a little bit better and then we will open up the process again from a bridge towards the

end of the year. certainly, we are always open and available to talk with you about traffic issues in your district. >> you have in your package in front of you all of the traffic calming area wide plans. it has a map of the city-wide, map for each of the planning areas, table that and edifies each of the traffic calming solutions identified in the area wide plan, and the current status of that, down to the speed hub level. commissioner olague: that is the level of detail i was looking for. commissioner avalos: if there are no other comments or questions from the committee, we will go on to public comment. >> a good morning, again. and the parkton with the san

francisco bicycle coalition. regarding long-term bike planning, to state the obvious, as more people are bicycling, parking will be more important. we support the mta boss modest allocation request to do some master planning on that. we look forward to the supervisors' committee later this week to take a supervisor at avalos' measure to allow commercial buildings. on traffic calming, we are supportive of this as well. we are most supportive of the process of the mta developing a strategic monitor system. previously, citizens would come and complain about and material -- an arterial. arterioles and now be regarded as something it has in great need. this great need of a rebalancing

interests, we are going to serve more people and help more people and save more lives if we can get some attention on the arterial. so there is a little bit of equity there. also, those are the streets were often bicycle and transit trips are happening. we want to hit multiple policy objectives. let me dwell on that for a second. to commissioner cohen's point about prop b, i hope this will put mta in a position to make sure we combine multiple funding sources, opportunities, so that we do not just drop in and do traffic calming or a bike project, but that we do a complete street projects. further down the agenda, we will be talking about the one bay area grant and the move to blend the money and to be smarter about it. i am looking for to having traffic, and come forward as a

piece of larger projects. we spoke about second street last week. that is a poster child of the kind of project -- commissioner avalos: thank you very much. >> commissioners, at the previous meeting, one of the commissioners, carmen chu, brought up the topic of how applications were forwarded to the mta and other agencies, and how the determination was made as to how money was spent. i heard a couple of people come here and say everything is going to come to a halt, and they are going to revisit what they have on their list. i would like this list to be posted on the website so that we can review this. what is happening here is, as

much as the constituents of san francisco -- and in some areas, we have a focus groups that understand planning and other things. as we submit these plans, we do not have any idea of how it will be implemented. if you have a road, avenue, and you talk about it, but it does that have a lighting, and it does is not incorporated, you see something is missing. we need to have it and holistic approach. at the last meeting, you heard about what was happening at second and folsom st., what was going to happen on cargo way. there is no way you can address putting a bicycle track on cargo way with millions of vehicles

flying down the street. this determination is made by some people who think they are smart, but again and again, -- literally, it is a slap in the face of constituents. we can talk the talk, but we better learn to walk the walk. we need to put that on the website to interact with commissioners. commissioner avalos: thank you. next speaker please. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this item is before us. motion to approve from commissioner kim. seconded by commissioner olague. without objection. thank you. next item please. >> item 7.

regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy update. this is an information item. >> good morning, committee members. i will be presenting this item. this is an update on the regional transportation plan sustainable community strategy. we provided updates to this committee several times over the course of that process but i recognize there are several new committee members here today, so i will give a bit of context before going into the update. regional transportation plan, rtp, is the long-range transportation investment policy for the nine-county region. it died out federal, state, regional discretionary funds are distributed within the area. there is $60 billion expected to be available in the next 25 years, and rtp sets policy for that money goes. there is a new context with this rtp as a result of a state law that was passed.

senate bill 355, that requires the transportation process to be linked with a land use and housing process, in order to achieve goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and planning adequate housing for the region. the process has been going on for over a year already. key milestones related to transportation, the first one was a year ago, when mtc ask for project ideas from the nine counties. we hosted that process here in san francisco. the second process that is now wrapping up is an assessment evaluating each of those projects against our goals for the planning project. we now have the results, and that will be used, along with other considerations, to decide the preferred in business strategy. moving towards the preferred investment strategy is what you want to touch on today briefly. the project performance assessment is something that mtc conducts for all of the projects

that are seeking discretionary funding through the regional transportation plan. there are two components to it. for the projects on the more expensive side, greater than $50 million, there is a quantitative where the impacts and benefits are quantified and compared against costs to calculate a benefit to cost ratio. and then a qualitative look at how the project will advance the 10 performance objectives of the plan. the goal of this planning process, testament, is not to read all the projects under consideration. rather, it is to identify out liars. on a high performing out wire side, let's make sure as we move into the preferred investment strategies, these are included if there is a financial way to do so. on the low performing side, it is not an automatic you are out of the rtp, but let's look more carefully at the project and ask

the project sponsor or congestion management agency to make a compelling case if the project is desired to continue to be included in the rtp. the result for san francisco, on a high performing side, we fare very well. out of 13 projects in the region that were identified as high performers, seven are in san francisco, including some of our local transit projects, van ness, of brt project, more regional projects, caltrain electrification, and also some of the pricing initiatives that san francisco is developing locally. with respect to low performers, there was just one project in san francisco. that is the historic streetcar expansion program. this project has two components to it. the first is building a turnaround at fourth and king

that would enable creation of a new line, e line, and would operate between fourth and came and to the fisherman's wharf. the second component is extending the f line from its current terminus to fort mason. mtc has said that project is at the cusp of a low performer. added benefit to cost ratio of 0.9, with a cup threshold of being one. there have also given cmas information about how to move forward from here. in particular, three criteria that we might use to make a compelling case as to why the project should continue to be considered for the rtp. we are confident that will not be an issue for this project. the project has a significant benefits to recreational and tourist trips, given the fishermen fourth area. the mtc model, there is a noted

limitation and not being able to represent visitor tourist trips very well. we have been working closely with the sfmta and the national parks service to whip together a letter that puts together our case to the mtc. we would also present that at the march planning committee meeting. other low performers -- there were 31 in the region. we are feeling pretty good about having only one in san francisco. they run the gamut from transit expansion to roadway expansion. a parallel effort to the performance assessment was an equity analysis. it can be paraphrased as some bad news, some good news. there was a scenario level looking at a set of transportation projects, if they are implemented, changing how future land use is distributed, what direction are we headed? one of the metrics they looked

at was the share of income spent on housing and transportation for low-income households. for this metric, the trend was a bit alarming. the share of income increases from 77% to 89% in the future. the purpose of doing the equity analysis at this phase in the process is that we can identify that issue, and as the planning effort moves forward, abag will come back with some strategies on how to mitigate that. the second component of the analysis was a project-level of an individual projects. today advance three equity measures that mtc has defined? and do they support a community of concern? with respect to that analysis, san francisco is looking very good. 80% of our projects are identified as ones that have strong equity outcomes and support community concerns.

that is good news as well. commissioner olague: can i have more detail with that? >> at the project level or scenario level? commissioner olague: to see that it was actually meeting the equity outcome. >> we can also forward to your office more information. they looked at three specific targets for equity. one was related to whether a particular project would help support housing and additional, affordable housing. the second was whether the project would reduce vehicle travel in the areas that have a high concentration of particulate matter. the third was whether it would have an impact on the low income household transportation costs, making it less expensive. those three targets, there was a reading of the their adverse

impact, minimal impact, moderate, or strong. in the case of the san francisco project, almost all of them came out at least with moderate or strong support. almost all of them serve a community of concern. commissioner olague: i would love to see that information. >commissioner avalos: commissioner kim? commissioner kim: i just wanted to follow up on commissioner olague's question. you say that they read each project their behalf -- each project that we have. >> what is the question? commissioner kim: i am asking you how they evaluate for the moderate, strong impact. >> i do not think i can give you a good answer, but i can get

back to you more on this methodology. it is something they just released to us on friday. commissioner kim: there are specific goals they want us to meet around a low income housing, a transit hubs. it is not that we are meeting the goal, it is that we are achieving a far better than any county. >> there are two statutory goals required as a result of senate bill 355. those relate to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% per capita by 2040. the second is to identify a strategy to house 100% of the region's housing in by income level. you are right. so far, in the planning process, there has not been a strategy identified to achieve either of those goals. it is not something that they break down by county. in addition to that, big picture, we cannot get the

individual transportation products that may go into the plan and say this one is not making things worse. this is information that can inform the policy makers in coming to the rtp investment strategy. >> to commissioner kim's question, you are correct. we are not necessarily meeting the goals today, but when you compare san francisco's situation with the region and you remembered transit share in the rest of the region is about 4%, and here is about 30%, higher than that at rush hour, and you look at the density that already exists in the city, then of course, we do better than the rest of the region by an order of magnitude. but also remember we are talking about samaras for a long-range plan. we are talking about the next 30 years. it is not about achieving these things tomorrow. what helps the city is a

requirement for affordable housing where there is submitted in amounts of development, particularly on the eastern side of the city. that brings of the correspondence between land use and transportation, planning, the same area where we provide affordable housing. that explains why products to better in other parts of the region. commissioner kim: i am aware we are doing better than other counties around transit, making sure we have a diversity of household incomes new transit hubs, but as commissioner olague mentioned, it would be nice to get the specifics. i know we may not need a pro rated goal each year, a goal that want to reach by 24 a, others will do better. but it is a good idea of where we are at. >> we will provide that information. commissioner olague: the reason i raise that, in the past, when issues a transit-oriented

development projects have come before certain bodies, the equity issue is not really emphasized. there are no goals relating to abag numbers, any of the above. just wondering, again, the methodology. what commissioner kim raised. that is where i have concerns, when we say we are meeting these equity goals, i am not clear what that really means. i know there have been some projects in certain districts that have captured more on the affordability level. i am not sure how some of these projects relate to the workforce, workforce needs. that sort of thing. i know we have 315 locally. the issue of equity, as it relates to sustainable communities strategies is, i

think, made at this point. i would like to see more specificity, as i mentioned, around that. even just including that word, what does equity mean? i just have some questions. thank you. >> ok. >> i am sensitive to the time. i will go through this quickly. we will be back before you next month and the following month because we are getting into the exciting part where the water is actually boiling on the rtp process. i also want to credit liz and william for spending too many nights working on this, as well as our project sponsors. this has been an effort with the entire city family, and today, dpw, and so forth. i will talk briefly about project priorities. for those of you who have not

been following the rtp process, it is a many-headed beast. it is establishing the long range vision, as the executive director alluded to, but also serves administrative functions. in some ways, this project was is precisely that. rtp is a gatekeeper. in order to be audible to compete for state or federal funds, to get a decision such as and eir, your decision is to be consistent. our focus would working with product sponsors is to make sure in this rtp to any project that meets state or federal funding or needs a federal decision before the next update is in this rtp. at least your prick phases. i should clarify. in terms of san francisco, establishing our long-range priorities happened to the transportation countywide process. we have spoken about that before. in october, we last came to this committee talking about a call

for product of the issue for artificially high targets. it was a $6 billion target that we put together. that is in your packet, page 116. this slide summarizes it. in a nutshell, this is one of those administrative functions. any project need to be in the rtp in the next five years, we wanted to make sure it was there. so far, we have been successful in that. if you look at the project list in your packet, pages 130, 131. 130 is a list of programs. the majority of the projects are street rehab. did not need to be looked at individually. on 180, there is a list of shorter projects and programs that need to be looked at individually.

mtc sets criteria based on federal law, capacity, something that needs to be called out individually. we had this initial large target of $6 billion. we recently got a fiscally constrain target of $1.3 billion. the fund sources up there. state regional improvement program funds, tradition enhancements, surface transportation programs mitigation quality, and assume the role of our sales tax. this rtp goes to 2014. two things. mtc is calling these discretionary funds, private county discretionary. the county its first say on how to use them. all of these funds have to come back to us anyway except for the max funds appear this is also a tiny piece of the

discretionary funds. there is about $60 billion in discretionary funds. mtc is asking us to make a fiscally constrained list of products without having all of the public pieces. we are missing some big funding sources. $16 billion in transit formula funds will use primarily for rehab of bart and caltrain, $14 billion in honor the veterans affairs that mtc is assuming. another $2.7 billion in new bridge tolls. we have no idea how these will be directed to investment in the region transportation plan, but we want to be advocating that we get our fair share. with the good spirit and collaboration of our project sponsors, at a phasing of projects and assumptions about getting future new starts and small start funds for future expansion projects. we have been able to keep our list of regional projects in the

rtp. we have often taken a stance. we have identified some regional projects that we think are important. growing local money at them with the idea that mtc will add regional discretion on money so they can be included in rtp. we have included transit operators and our sister congestion management agencies in this. that is evolving. it involves things like enabling potential crossovers at some key places. we know the inner core of the bart system is at capacity. we know where the constraints are. but there are changes made, that they allow bart to turn around trains during peak time. it is a product that is not well defined at all, and this is something that we are advocating for.

we want to at least see funds for further feasibility studies and scoping of the project. we also came to this committee a few months ago about the one bay area block grant. he should be familiar with the second street discussion last month. this encompasses the transportation for livable communities, safe routes to schools, local streets and roads, regional bike program. this body will have the opportunity to decide how much funding from the block grant to spend on each of those four programs. we would be done about $30 million from the program. i will not go into any details except to note, in january, and to see released our revision of the program in response to a large volume of comments received throughout the region. in line with commissioner kim's

projects, we are and out liar. they try to get consensus on the regionally elected bodies. that is difficult. here we are making a lot of comments on the framework. there is still a great deal of resistance about some of the requirements in there. by and large, the revised framework will stay pretty much as it is. what it does is innovative. but it does not benefit san francisco. it links transportation funds to the land use item, particularly to the production and planning processes for the housing. i want to thank our mtc commissioner and commissioner avalos. abag did change their allocation formula to more heavily with the production and planning for low- income housing, which benefited us directly, but is also an important recognition. commissioner avalos: i did not realize there were anti the

placement -- there was anti despite the language removed. >> good point. it was originally included as a policy suggestion. we suggested that this be a mandatory policy. mtc has taken it out of the revision in january. i know that this was discussed at a joint committee. mtc commissioners and others asked that this be added back, so there is an opportunity to do that over the next couple of months. commissioner kim: what does it mean, the removal of the affordable housing production policies? >> the original framework. it was about four policies. in order to be eligible to receive funds through the block grant, a jurisdiction would have to be two of the four policies. mtc and abag was getting a lot of push back from others who feltik